patrick.net

The New York Times reported the unintentionally encouraging story below the headline, “Supreme Court Sides With Conservative Congressman in Illinois Election Rules Challenge.”

You remember how many Trump lawsuits were thrown out by courts in 2020 for “lack of standing”? The Supreme Court just changed how standing works, making it harder for trial courts to dismiss election challenges going forward. And they did it in two different ways, both of which are vast improvements.

First, SCOTUS essentially said that any candidate automatically has standing. ...

Second, candidates not only have standing, but now they needn’t wait until after the election when they can prove problems occurred. They can now file suit well in advance of elections, so long as they can explain that problematic rules pose a reasonable threat to their chances.

According to the Times, Democrats were hardest hit. “Election law experts warned that a favorable decision could clear the way for a host of lawsuits challenging all kinds of election rules in states throughout the country,” the Times explained, “particularly from Republicans, who have advanced a narrative that some state rules, especially involving mail-in ballots, unfairly favor Democrats.”

If Republicans know what they are doing, we should soon see the “host of lawsuits” blooming all across the country, like colorful wildflowers cropping up along Florida’s Turnpike in springtime. Just in time for the mid-term elections in November.

This wasn’t the only election case pending at the high court. Later this term, SCOTUS will also hear arguments in a Mississippi case, about whether counting mail-in ballots past the deadline (and only stopping when the desired result is reached) is illegal in federal elections. “A decision upending Mississippi’s rules could affect dozens of other states,” the Times gloomily predicted, “throwing election rules into chaos before the midterms.”

Everything is coming together, almost as though it had been planned this way. Stay optimistic.

In more great appellate news, the Colorado Sun ran a story yesterday headlined, “Colorado appeals panel appears skeptical of Tina Peters’ sentence. It might be the first truly good news for election whistleblower Tina Peters since she was first sent to prison. ...

“The court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights,” Appeals Judge Craig Welling said.

During sentencing, District Court Judge Matthew Barrett called Ms. Peters a “charlatan” and said she posed a “danger to the community” for “spreading lies about voting” and undermining the democratic process.

Not only that, but just as legally significant —maybe even more so— the appellate judges seemed honestly shocked and appalled that Tina’s jurors were given a verdict form with the wrong legal standard on it. The jurors were instructed on misdemeanor charges, even though Peters was sentenced for felony charges.

There was more good news for Tina. Recently, after President Trump pardoned Ms. Peters of any federal crimes (she’s jailed under state law), Colorado’s Democrat Governor Jared Polis said he would consider clemency, and even described Ms. Peter’s sentence as “harsh.”